A Stitch in Time - Paperback - Why so expensive?
- Thread starter Namikaze
- Start date
Actually, libraries provide many services that are essential to the good health of a community, including free Internet access and instructional materials for people searching for employment. But what is essential to a community is of course distinct from what is essential to an individual.
And the point is not to say you should have to go without a book. After all -- I specifically cited the library as a way to get free books. The point was to say, there's nothing wrong with selling an incredibly minor luxury at maximal value.
There is plenty wrong with what you said and it speaks volumes about character. JustKate has the right idea about simply purchasing the ebook.
I would tell you that life is not fair. As far as charging goes. It's worth whatever people are willing to pay. You've never bought anything from Ebay? Isn't that the same thing?
Fairness is not the issue. Charging whatever the market will bear for an item is perfectly fine however, stealing from the library, lying about the item being lost, and then simply paying the original cover price is not.
It is deeply immoral to steal a common resource from your community -- because doing so denies that resource to your fellow citizens, and forces them to pay money for an obscure book that they should be able to borrow for free.
You seem confused. I have been arguing that it is wrong to steal a book from a library.
No, it's perfectly fair. You can read the book at its standard release price by downloading it as an eBook, and you can borrow the book for free from your public library. You have access to the exact same story for free or at a low price; you don't need my copy to read it if you aren't willing to pay the price for my copy that others are.
Nor are you being taken advantage of -- being "taken advantage of" implies that you are being denied some resource you need for health, safety, or happiness. No such thing is occurring. You are being denied a physical copy of a book available electronically for a low price, or available for borrowing for free, unless you match the price others are willing to pay. This is perfectly reasonable.
Nor is it stealing if i pay for it.
No, it remains theft, because books in the public library are not for sale. If you break into my house and take my copy of Doctor Who: The Complete Third Series on DVD, yet leave me enough money to purchase a new copy, that is still theft -- because I did not consent to the transfer of property.
You have no right to take a book from a public library if that library has not explicitly placed it on sale. You have the right to borrow it; nothing more.
It's still stealing from the library, Saturn - libraries don't (usually, at least - I used to work in a library but that was looooong ago, and perhaps Thor Damar can tell us more current information) actually charge you the price of the book, particularly a rare book. Even if they charge you the list price, they don't charge for the full cost of finding a new copy of the book, ordering it, processing it, etc. What I'm saying is even if you pay for the book you stole, you aren't compensating the library (and the taxpayers and volunteers and so on who support it) for the full cost of replacing the book.
And in fact, what they'd probably do if a relatively obscure paperback disappears is simply not replace it.
So yeah, when you take a book from the library and keep it for yourself, you're stealing a book. I realize, judging from your earlier posts, that's not what you intend to do. But it's what you're doing, I'm sorry to say.
Last edited:
Succinctly put. Well described.
And to put another slant on it - because the argument will be made that he didn't break into the library - even if you were invited "into my house and take my copy of Doctor Who: The Complete Third Series on DVD, yet leave me enough money to purchase a new copy, that is still theft -- because I did not consent to the transfer of property."
Well, we normally charge the cost of the book as given in our catalog (which is,quite amusingly, called OpenGalaxy) we then give the borrower a receipt so that, if they find the lost item a full refund can be given. However this is a one off payment, as Justkate rightly puts it we don't make them pay the full expense of reordering the book. If its a rare item then it should be a reference book and thus unavailable for any blighter to borrow and therefore to walk with whatever deity one favorites (Not the right spelling but my mind is slowly dying on me, alas
). Unfortunately there isn't really a lot we can do if a book 'disappears' whilst a borrower is on 'holiday' so we mostly rely on the kindness of strangers to ensure that the public's books stay where they should be.
And it works! (mostly...)
Oh, i've never done that.. And i know first hand as my local had a copy of 2010 go missing. They won't replace it. I of course can order it from another local but i went ahead and borrowed a buddies copy..
I'm not saying its right. But like everything in life.
Do what you gotta do..
Why not just borrow the book any time you want to read it? That's what libraries are for, after all. You'd rather screw over every other person who would have otherwise borrowed it?
This is not "do what you gotta do" to live, this is "do what you gotta do" to be selfish.
No, you did not. The book was the property of the public library, not your private property. By taking the book by fraudulently claiming it to have been lost, you engaged in theft. Period.
No, not a fine line. Very clearly theft.
Exactly. The entire point of a library is to make books available to be borrowed and read for free to the public. What gives anyone the right to deny others' ability to read the book for free, too?
Wow, this thread has turned into a morality discussion. Oh well, might as well jump in:
Taking out a book from the library, claiming you lost it, and then keeping it and paying the fine: uh yeah, that's stealing. It wasn't for sale in the first place, but you are essentially forcing a sale through your illegal action of taking something that is public property. The fact that you are compelled to compensate the library for your wrongful action doesn't retroactively legitimize said action. You are depriving other readers of the chance to borrow the book. A bookstore and a library are not the same thing. How is this a difficult concept to grasp? I mean okay, obviously it's not the most terrible thing you could do, but it's still wrong.
On the other hand, however, I have no problem if someone wants to charge $500 or even $5,000 for this book. Would I find it ridiculous? Yes. But immoral? No. As someone upthread said, it would be different if we were talking about charging an arm and a leg for a neccessity, like some life-saving medicine or something. But a book is a luxury item. Just because you want to charge a very high price for something like that, doesn't mean someone has to pay that price. If they want the item badly enough to fork over that amount of cash, that's their business. The only problem would be if you were misrepresenting the item's intrinsinc value. Like say, instead of a Trek book, you claimed it was a rare first edition of some very famous novel, when it was in fact merely a modern reprint of said novel that anyone could walk into a bookstore and buy for $15 or so. That would be morally wrong. But people are entitled to make purchases that others might find baffling. I myself once spent $125 for a rare CD by my favorite singer. Not everyone would have done this, but it was worth it to me. Would I have liked it if the price was lower? Of course. But I don't think the seller was immoral. I wouldn't regularly spend that much for a CD, but to me, it was worth it. No one forced me, it was my choice. It's a free market.
Taking out a book from the library, claiming you lost it, and then keeping it and paying the fine: uh yeah, that's stealing. It wasn't for sale in the first place, but you are essentially forcing a sale through your illegal action of taking something that is public property. The fact that you are compelled to compensate the library for your wrongful action doesn't retroactively legitimize said action. You are depriving other readers of the chance to borrow the book. A bookstore and a library are not the same thing. How is this a difficult concept to grasp? I mean okay, obviously it's not the most terrible thing you could do, but it's still wrong.
On the other hand, however, I have no problem if someone wants to charge $500 or even $5,000 for this book. Would I find it ridiculous? Yes. But immoral? No. As someone upthread said, it would be different if we were talking about charging an arm and a leg for a neccessity, like some life-saving medicine or something. But a book is a luxury item. Just because you want to charge a very high price for something like that, doesn't mean someone has to pay that price. If they want the item badly enough to fork over that amount of cash, that's their business. The only problem would be if you were misrepresenting the item's intrinsinc value. Like say, instead of a Trek book, you claimed it was a rare first edition of some very famous novel, when it was in fact merely a modern reprint of said novel that anyone could walk into a bookstore and buy for $15 or so. That would be morally wrong. But people are entitled to make purchases that others might find baffling. I myself once spent $125 for a rare CD by my favorite singer. Not everyone would have done this, but it was worth it to me. Would I have liked it if the price was lower? Of course. But I don't think the seller was immoral. I wouldn't regularly spend that much for a CD, but to me, it was worth it. No one forced me, it was my choice. It's a free market.
Similar threads
